Question about the Flood

[handy]

What was it that Stevie Nicks crooned... "Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies..."

We can make up anything we want to believe about God, people have been doing so since the dawn of man. If there is some kind of fact about Who God is that makes you uncomfortable, and if you can't handle the idea that this world isn't all there is and that eternity is a fact as well, go ahead and make up a god that makes you feel good. You won't be the first to do so. Don't think there is any salvation in such a god, but if you believe that this world is the only world there is, I'm sure the touchy, feeley, feel good god of your imagination will serve you well in this world.

The thing about the Bible though is that it teaches that there is only one true God and that we must bow before Him. Not just the things we like about Him, but Him in all of His truth and glory.

Free is right, one can't just pick and choose from the Bible and come up with anything that is coherent about God. Start picking and choosing, and you'll wind up with an illogical mess every time. Take the time to patiently and prayerfully study all that God has chosen to reveal about Himself through His Word, and things fall into place and it becomes clear that a God that chooses to destroy the world via a flood, is a loving and good God and that it was altogether just and good that He did so.

Truth is, God is love, God is good, God is just and God is merciful. If He chose to destroy the earth, even with innocent children in it, I'm sure that the children were immediately before His loving presence and are with Him still to this day as for all eternity.

But, if all you are interested in is finding reasons to disbelieve the one true God, go ahead and make up your own. Just don't count on your imaginary god to save you come Judgment Day.

 

[SEEKER55]

When did I say that “this world is the only world there is�
You know nothing about me and your statement; “I'm sure the touchy, feeley, feel good god of your imagination will serve you well in this world.†was not very nice.
I have no problem with people that believe in the Bible but acting like you KNOW everything and looking down your nose at other people’s beliefs is just wrong.

 

[wavy]

I believe the following post is decisive against the Flood's historicity, at least as depicted in the bible. There's no doubt that Noah's Flood is a myth, since it's demonstrably dependent upon a Babylonian original. Among many other things, I think this can be proven alone from the calendar in the narrative:

We are aware that the Hebrews calculated the year at 354 days and compensated against the solar year, which is actually 365 days (but, as I will show, the Hebrews seemed to have calculated the solar year at about 364 days). In other words, their calendar was lunisolar (Genesis i.14), so it incorporated both the moon and the sun.

Their months, twelve in all, were synodic, one lunation lasting about 29.5 days. To compensate for the extra half day, they intercalated their months with alternating 29-/30-day periods, i.e., the 354 days.

The Babylonian calendar was uniformly solar beginning sometime in the early 2nd millenium (see 'Calendar' in the Encyc. Brit. Macro., 1990, 15th ed., p. 463), comprising 360 days. That is, it was not based on any cycle of the moon (and wouldn't be for a while).

So with that in mind, we examine the Flood narrative. According to Genesis vii.11, Noah entered the ark the day the Flood began on the 17th of the second month, and exactly 150 days later the ark rested on the Ararat range according to Genesis viii.3-4 on the 17th day, this time of the seventh month. But there's a problem with this calculation:

'[N]o period of 5 months could possibly be estimated at 150 days, the months usually having alternately 29 and 30 days....The use of the even month of 30 days can scarcely be accounted for except by supposing P to follow, more closely than is commonly supposed, some Babylonian original; for the arbitrary equal month of 30 days is a peculiarity of the Baylonian calendar.'
--B.W. Bacon, 'Chronology of the Flood Account in P.--A Contribution to the History of the Jewish Calendar', Hebraica, vol. 8, no. 1/2, 1891/1892, p. 83

According to Genesis viii.14, the Flood was completely dissipated on the 27th of the second month, a year and ten days later (from the 17th of the second month back around to the 27th of the second month).

These dates are not arbitrary because they serve a subtle meaning in the narrative. What the author has done at the end of the narrative is conflate his own Hebraic lunisolar calendar with the calendar used for compiling the narrative, the 360-day Babylonian calendar. That is, he lapses back into his lunar understanding of the year and assumes the Flood lasted 354-days, and attempts to compensate for the lunar/solar discrepancy by adding ten more days (354 + 10 = 364).

That the Hebrews calculated the solar year at 364 days is known from the sectarian writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls, who drawing on ancient traditions, repudiated the 354-day lunar calendar used by Temple Judaism and observed a solar year.

For example,

YHWH gave him an intelligent and brilliant spirit, and he wrote 3,600 psalms and 364 songs to sing before the altar for the daily perpetual sacrifice, for all the days of the year
--11QPs27, quoted from Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, Penguin Press, 1997, p. 307.

Copies of the 2nd/3rd century B.C. apocryphal books 1Enoch and Jubilees (both available online) were also found at Qumran, indicating their authoritative status there:

And command thou the children of Israel that they observe the years according to this reckoning-three hundred and sixty-four days, and (these) will constitute a complete year
--Jubilees vi.32

is equal to the day and the year is exactly as to its days three hundred and sixty-four. And the length of the day and of the night, and the shortness of the day and of the night arise-through the course
--1Enoch lxxii.33


Anyway, there's much more to it than this (e.g., the significance of Noah's age, 600, for Babylonian cyclic calculations).

But my girlfriend is waiting (heh heh), and I'll be back for any responses.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[handy]

When did I say that “this world is the only world there is�
You know nothing about me and your statement; “I'm sure the touchy, feeley, feel good god of your imagination will serve you well in this world.†was not very nice.
I have no problem with people that believe in the Bible but acting like you KNOW everything and looking down your nose at other people’s beliefs is just wrong.

Sorry Seeker, I didn't mean to phrase my post so that it implied that I was disrespecting you personally. I had also perused the link that guitarman had posted and was responding to the general idea that God is basically who we religious types determine He is, rather than a specific Person Who is Who He is. I re-read my post and admit it could have been phrased much better.

No, I don't know everything, but I trust that the Bible does and while I don't precisely look down my nose at other people's beliefs, I also won't accept anything that contradicts the clear teaching of Word of God. And, one thing that is clearly taught in the Word of God, whether we are speaking of the world wide flood or of God's judgment and wrath against some of the pagan nations or even against Israel, is that sometimes it is a pretty fearful thing to land in the hand of the Living God. I've been a believer now for over 30 years and I have heard over and over variations of the line: "Well, MY God would never..." fill in the blank, order the destruction of a place if it meant children would be killed, send a sinner into everlasting torment, etc. etc. etc. One thing about all these statements is the fact that the person who is saying it is making the mistake of trying to define God. Just as you were (rightfully) angry that I tried to define who you were with my badly worded post, God is justifiably angry when people try to make out that He isn't Who He says He is.

I take it from your post that you do indeed believe that there is an eternal life beyond this world. I'm sure that perhaps we can both agree that if a child were to suffer death in this world, God would by all means bring that child into eternal life with Him. And, if God's intent in flooding the earth was to destroy the out-of-control wickedness of men, and bring all children safely to Him for all eternity, I for one, don't see that as necessarily a bad thing. As I mentioned before, the world of Noah before the flood sounds like a brutal place for the weak and innocent.

Wavy, I'm almost certain that we've had a discussion once before about the Flood myths. Flood myths are common throughout the entire world. My personal belief is that the ubiquitousness of flood myths speak to the veracity of the Biblical account rather than to dismiss it. It really doesn't matter to me that the Babylonian myth predates the Genesis account, at least the written Genesis account.

However, I find the whole calendar issue intriguing. I'll study this a bit for I haven't seen this before.

 

[wavy]

Wavy, I'm almost certain that we've had a discussion once before about the Flood myths. Flood myths are common throughout the entire world. My personal belief is that the ubiquitousness of flood myths speak to the veracity of the Biblical account rather than to dismiss it. It really doesn't matter to me that the Babylonian myth predates the Genesis account, at least the written Genesis account.

Hey, long time, no interaction. :D

The ubiquity of flood myths would only suggest either of two things: that they all originate from a common myth or that there actually was a historical, cataclysmic flood (of whatever proportions) upon which all of them are based. In the case of the former, well, enough said.

But in the case of the latter, that doesn't tell us anything about the 'veracity' of any individual account, much less the biblical one. In fact, if there is a historical basis, it may be that none of them reflect what actually happened, and are all spin-offs from the truth.

So it takes more than establishing the historicity of some flood. You need evidence that the biblical account specifically is the veracious account, and I do not think you'll be able to, hence my calendar argument. Unless in the beginning God vagariously chose to work the flood on a Babylonian calendar that did not yet exist (and quite contrary to the lunisolar calendar he ordained in Genesis i.14), I think it's safe to assume the biblical version is just a readaptation of some or other Babylonian version.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[turnorburn]

Wavy, I'm almost certain that we've had a discussion once before about the Flood myths. Flood myths are common throughout the entire world. My personal belief is that the ubiquitousness of flood myths speak to the veracity of the Biblical account rather than to dismiss it. It really doesn't matter to me that the Babylonian myth predates the Genesis account, at least the written Genesis account.

Hey, long time, no interaction. :D

The ubiquity of flood myths would only suggest either of two things: that they all originate from a common myth or that there actually was a historical, cataclysmic flood (of whatever proportions) upon which all of them are based. In the case of the former, well, enough said.

But in the case of the latter, that doesn't tell us anything about the 'veracity' of any individual account, much less the biblical one. In fact, if there is a historical basis, it may be that none of them reflect what actually happened, and are all spin-offs from the truth.

So it takes more than establishing the historicity of some flood. You need evidence that the biblical account specifically is the veracious account, and I do not think you'll be able to, hence my calendar argument. Unless in the beginning God vagariously chose to work the flood on a Babylonian calendar that did not yet exist (and quite contrary to the lunisolar calendar he ordained in Genesis i.14), I think it's safe to assume the biblical version is just a readaptation of some or other Babylonian version.

Thanks,
Eric

You speak a lot about Babylon, have a go at Hislop's book..

http://www.biblebelievers.com/babylon/index.htm

 

[guitarman]

I know this is slightly off topic but handy wrote: "No, I don't know everything, but I trust that the Bible does and while I don't precisely look down my nose at other people's beliefs, I also won't accept anything that contradicts the clear teaching of Word of God. And, one thing that is clearly taught in the Word of God, whether we are speaking of the world wide flood or of God's judgment and wrath against some of the pagan nations or even against Israel, is that sometimes it is a pretty fearful thing to land in the hand of the Living God." Does that mean that you believe that homosexuals and witches should be killed? Or that you can't eat a kid(baby goat) that has been boiled in it's mother's milk? Or any of the other crazy laws god laid down in the OT? Jesus said he came to fulfill the law and that those old laws didn't really matter anymore. Does that mean that Jesus contradicted the laws his dad set out? It sounds like the bible contradicts itself.

 

[handy]

Off topic, guitarman. Open a new thread on it, but only if you are really interested in doing the study necessary to find out why things changed when Jesus came. We'll look at the book of Hebrews and a fair bit of Romans as well as some of what Jesus Himself declared about His ministry. If you are asking this just in the spirit to "trip me up" or whatever, don't bother, but I'm more than willing to delve into the very rich answer that your question has.

 

[handy]

Oh, a place the thread in Bible Study, far more appropriate thread than Apologetics!

Now, totopic

 

[handy]

Eric, I'm delving into the Hebrew calendar and the first thing I've found is that it's not for the faint of heart, or for those with limited math skills! :D I've seen some evidence that the entire early Hebrew calendar (from the OT) was influenced by Canaanite and Babylonia methods of marking time. The issue of the lunar calendar which equaled to 29 days and 12 hours seems fairly hard to nail down to any kind of practical system, so I would imagine that in the early days things were a bit chaotic. I almost lost hope when I read that the way the new month was determined was when two reliable witnesses told the priests that they saw the new moon, but even this is far too late for any Flood as there were no priests in those days. :crazy

At any rate, it's been fascinating. If I come up with anything that either substantiates the claim that the early Hebrew calendar was indeed influenced by the Babylonians or answers the question of the 150 days in a definitive way, I'll post it. The closest I got was 149 days recorded in a complete year (as opposed to a deficient or regular year), but without knowing how the whole 12 thing worked into it, it's hard to nail down exactly.

All a nice exercise in what is really, for me at least, a rather unimportant point. Personally, I think that the early Hebrews of Noah's day probably used the calendar of the area. Genesis doesn't really give us the exact calendar that is being referred to here and we must remember that this was long before there was any nation of Israel. (That is if one is taking the idea that the Biblical account is the true one, which I am.)

 

[whirlwind]

You probably won't get a whole bunch of responses from traditionalists.

The truth is, IMHO, that Noah DIDN'T have EVERY animal in the Ark. Just the ones NEEDED to create a basic ecosystem in the area which was flooded. Food animals and the basic animals needed to 'start over' until the surrounding area could 'come back'.

It is rediculous to think that he had EVERY animal on the ark. The logistics of a ship containing EVERY animal that exists is unfathomable even TODAY. Just the concept of keeping enough FRESH food to feed them all for A YEAR is more than we could accomplish TODAY.

I know, I know, the traditionalists will be yelling, "off with his head. Don't you know that NOTHING is impossible with God". Yes, I DO KNOW that.

But, if one reads the Bible and the story of Noah, it is pretty easy to see that there were PARTICULAR people that God destroyed. And those people would most likely have not spread over more than a few hundreds of miles from where they started at the time of the flood.

And not only would the question of the different animals on different continents have to be answered, so TOO would one have to explain the DIFFERENT races. For if ALL came from Noah, then we would ALL share common characteristics. This does not account for different RACES of people.

Traditionalists will state that the division of races and languages took place at the tower of Babel. Funny, but HOW did these different races spread out over the entire planet BEFORE they had the MEANS to DO SO? I mean, before there was the means of oceanic navigation and such?

The aboriginies of the different islands for example. You know, Like Hawaiians, Maori, heck, the American Indians?

So, the answer is that there was obviously a LOCALIZED FLOOD. How large we don't know. Large enough to appear to those that witnessed it to 'cover the earth'.

Blessings,

MEC

I too believe it was a localized flood but the explanation of the races is written...and they weren't all from Adam or Noah.

Genesis 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

7:15-16 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.

 

[inhopeofglory]

So you're saying that Noah took two of all the "races" into the Ark?!

2 Peter 2:5: "[God]... did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly..."

Only eight people were saved. Noah, his wife, their three sons, and their wives. From them the whole earth was repopulated... because everyone else had died.

Acts 17:26: "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings..."

We are one race. One blood. All descended from Adam, through Noah and his family.

 

[mutzrein]

There are a number of references in scriptutre which speak of the coming of the son of man while comparing it with the days of Noah.

If not all of mankind was subject to the flood, could that mean that not all of mankind will be subject to Christ's return? :gah

 

[turnorburn]

whirlwind says: I too believe it was a localized flood but the explanation of the races is written...and they weren't all from Adam or Noah.

Where in chapter 7 of the book of Genesis does it say the flood was localized, if that were true then
Noah and his family weren't the only ones to survive, I've heard this song and dance before and
have concluded its a falsehood.

Genesis 7:Genesis 7

1And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

2Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

3Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

4For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

5And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him.

6And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.

7And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.

8Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,

9There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

10And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

11In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

12And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

13In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;

14They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

15And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

16And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.

17And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.

18And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

19And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

21And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

23And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

24And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.


turnorburn

 

[whirlwind]

So you're saying that Noah took two of all the "races" into the Ark?!

2 Peter 2:5: "[God]... did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly..."

Only eight people were saved. Noah, his wife, their three sons, and their wives. From them the whole earth was repopulated... because everyone else had died.

Acts 17:26: "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings..."

We are one race. One blood. All descended from Adam, through Noah and his family.

The Bible is the story of One man and His family....not all of mankind except in how they/we relate to Him and He to us. Noah was "one of eight people" that were of the Adamic line....the line to Christ. The others are the "all flesh, two by two, with the breath of life" that were taken aboard the ark with Noah.

We are not one race and never have been one race. Perhaps it is politically correct to believe that but...we have eyes. Mankind walked the earth before the formation of Adam. Mankind, all races, were created on the sixth day....Adam wasn't formed until after the seventh day.

Where it is written..."made from one blood," the word "blood" was not in the text in that verse. Bullinger states that it should properly be translated....one clay or one man. As we know one race doesn't produce a different race then we know it wasn't from one man. We are all of clay....all created from the earth....all races are created from the earth.

 

[whirlwind]

There are a number of references in scriptutre which speak of the coming of the son of man while comparing it with the days of Noah.

If not all of mankind was subject to the flood, could that mean that not all of mankind will be subject to Christ's return? :gah

That is a good question. :yes

Certainly all mankind is subject to the return. The flood being local or world-wide isn't something I feel strongly about and seldom argue either way. It is simply what I believe for various reasons. I don't see it being a "go to hell" issue.

There was a world-wide flood but that was long before the time of Noah...and Adam.

 

[inhopeofglory]

We are not one race and never have been one race.

The Flood was global, killing everyone other than Noah and his family. From them, the only eight survivors of the Flood, the whole earth was populated. That means that every human on Earth is related to Noah. We are all one race.

Genesis 9:18-19: "Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And Ham was the father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated."

Mankind walked the earth before the formation of Adam.

Not according to the Bible.

Genesis 3:20: "And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living."

That means that Adam and Eve were the very first couple, the first humans, the first of mankind. Otherwise how can Eve be the mother of all?

 

[whirlwind]

We are not one race and never have been one race.

The Flood was global, killing everyone other than Noah and his family. From them, the only eight survivors of the Flood, the whole earth was populated. That means that every human on Earth is related to Noah. We are all one race.

Genesis 9:18-19: "Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And Ham was the father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated."

The King James writes...and of them was the whole earth overspread, not "populated."

Overspread - # 5310 naphats; to dash to pieces, or scatter; be beaten in sunder, break (in pieces), broken, dash (in pieces), cause to be discharged, dispersed, be overspread, scatter.

And...they did but that does not tell us all races are from Noah's three sons. Remember.....

Ecclesiastes 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, 'See, this is new?' it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

If you can show me where a Chinese couple gave birth to a Caucasian or a Caucasian couple to an Indian, etc., etc., then I would say, "See, this is new" and your belief could be proven. God created all races, not mankind. Mankind reproduces, not creates, people.

[quote:3lseanm9]Mankind walked the earth before the formation of Adam.

Not according to the Bible.

Genesis 3:20: "And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living."

That means that Adam and Eve were the very first couple, the first humans, the first of mankind. Otherwise how can Eve be the mother of all?[/quote:3lseanm9]


It isn't written that Eve is the "mother of all" but that she is the "mother of all living." Those that "live spiritually" are those that believe in Jesus. She is the first mother that led to Him.

 

[handy]

Whirlwind, do by chance believe in the serpent seed?

 

[Imagican]

We are not one race and never have been one race.

The Flood was global, killing everyone other than Noah and his family. From them, the only eight survivors of the Flood, the whole earth was populated. That means that every human on Earth is related to Noah. We are all one race.

Genesis 9:18-19: "Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And Ham was the father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated."

[quote:3k4lx33j]Mankind walked the earth before the formation of Adam.

Not according to the Bible.

Genesis 3:20: "And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living."

That means that Adam and Eve were the very first couple, the first humans, the first of mankind. Otherwise how can Eve be the mother of all?[/quote:3k4lx33j]


NO, the FIRST chapter of Genesis explains that there were MEN AND WOMEN BEFORE Adam. PLAINLY. And what many confuse is the word LIVING. Are those ALIVE today that are in DARKNESS considered to be LIVING? Christ offered a plain explanation of my point when He stated to; 'Let the DEAD bury the DEAD'.

So, while one may CHOOSE to believe that EVERY LIVING soul means ALL humans, this is NOT necessarily what is offered.

To the witnesses of the FLOOD, (for how could there be an account of that which was NOT WITNESSED), it appeared to BE 'worldwide' for it covered the land as FAR as they could perceive.

But God had a PURPOSE for the destruction of them that died in the flood and PLAINLY explained it. While the churches have erred in their interpretation, that does NOT alter that God OFFERED explanation even if MISUNDERSTOOD for thousands of years.

But I guess for many it's a WHOLE lot EASIER to continue in the 'fairy tale' story that the chruches offer. But the Bible is pretty clear to those willing to accept what is OFFERED.

Blessings,

MEC